I agree; few or none of these "expert macroeconomists" were able to predict the mess we're in now, so why should we grant them any more deference than Sarah Palin (or some cranky guy that posts on Economist blogs)? And having failed to foresee a meltdown, why should we reward these same economists with more power over the markets? Their own track record is the best argument against their proposals.

The moral dimension to economic policy is nothing new, and well-known to every Tea-Partier and Kossac. It would be nice if Krugman occasionally took his blinders off, however.

Excellent piece, both key points are 100% correct. Both are very important observations. We lose something critical if we ignore them. Most importantly, they impart some humility on those in power that are relatively "safe" from public opinion. It's good they are safe, but it's also good if they are humble and maybe even more important, if they are clear and transparent about the moral positions that win and the ones that lose. I really liked this post.

This post really captures the title of the blog in a way that discussion of the issues of the day simply cannot. It can't be something you do all that often, but its really refreshing to address the philosophical big picture from time to time. The political centre values 'getting things done' above all else, leaving debates over the fundamental justice of how things work to the harder edges of the left and right. I suppose the centre ends up with the compromises between the fringes, but there is surely more to centrist morality than that. I wonder, however, if the technocrats themselves are the right people to be arguing the centrist case, if only because of the conflict of interest that W.W. lays out. I can understand the frustration of economists at the world's reluctance to listen to their ideas on the morality of economic theory, but they might be better served by outsourcing the evangelizing to 'public intellectuals' and politicians.

In fairness to doublehelix (and God, I never thought I'd say *those* four words), he has actually said in the past that he would be okay with immediate cuts to programs affecting the elderly despite the fact that he is almost eligible for them. So while that particular hypocrisy applies to many Tea Partiers, doublehelix is not one of them.

"The fight between proponents of marriage equality and defenders of traditional matrimony is nothing if not a morality play."

Time to edit your article. The post WWII love marriage with age-equal partners with a specific economic basis is not traditional. Time to add quotes to that sentence up there around the word "traditional".

There are very few people who let economic reality, historical or current, interfere with their ideological or macroeconomic inclinations. Humans in general will always push any good idea to its ridiculous extreme.

If TARP eventually winds up turning a profit for the taxpayer (like the Savings and Loan bailout), does it still amount to "a scheme of private profits and socialized losses"?

I agree that the moral implications of economic policy, and especially the moral opinions of the electorate, deserve a more public hearing from our leaders, but should we assume the possible worst-case moral outcome of a policy is indeed a fact? Especially an unwanted, but desperately necessary policy that will take years to play out?

I expect more thought from a newspaper who's goal is "take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."

Sorry, I'm cranky. Apart from the standard "they say we should revere them" road apples, I largely agree with the post, but think the economic reasoning and moral reasoning can be done well or better separately, as long as we accept the idea that morality is the content while the economy is the architecture of our civilization.

I think this: "When elite economists demand more deference to technocratic consensus, they not so subtly demand that (even more) immense political power be ceded to them and their grad-school pals," is part of pattern of horsefeathering. Who are the elite economists and when do they do more than advocate what their models tell them would be the most beneficial policy from the standpoint of fungible utility? We don't have to listen and I rarely hear anyone say we have to listen to economists.

If Sarah Palin gets to announce what she thinks good economic policy would be, someone who has actually studied it ought to get to announce his or her own understanding without being accused of elitism and imperial pretension. Unless W.W. has an example to offer of an economist other than Paul Krugman expecting the deference of the people in some clear statement.